Inclusive rehabilitation and assistive technologies development: An exploration of considerations, principles, and stakeholder engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This piece is provided in honor of the late Brooke Ellison, a brave advocate within the disability and paralysis community.The integration of rehabilitation and assistive technologies (Rehab & A-T) has become pervasive in the lives of People With Disabilities (PWD), facilitating physical, emotional, and spiritual function and interaction within the world on a daily basis.Yet, all too often, the end-user is not included in the development process and assumptions are made about performance, satisfaction, preferences, and access. 1 Outcome measures have been developed and tested to evaluate user satisfaction such as the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST).This tool serves as a reliable and valid means of assessing A-T outcomes from a user's perspective 2 ; however, these measures are often used post-production rather than earlier during the design phase.Here, we review the Rehab & A-T ecosystem, delve into the emergence of Co-Development principles, and reinforce the imperative of connecting end-user stakeholders throughout the A-T design and development testing, assessment, provision, fitting, training, and maintenance continuum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".